![]() |
|
Philosophy Religions, schools of thought, matters of importance and navel-gazing |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
We have to go back, Kate!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
|
I was sort of on board, until the 'hell breath mentality' bit...does that mean you think we should be less verbal in our communications, and stick to the written word?
__________________
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,162
|
The prime difference: writing tends to eliminate ambiguity as well as preserve the codification of thoughts across time and circumstance while speech is often muddled, meandering, and utterly dependent on the flawed memory of the listener once the speaker is done.
Any psychological impact either route has (on writer/reader; speaker/listener) extends out from this difference. That is: one is far less likely to 'interpret' the content of writing (if done right, the meaning of the writer is plain and can be revisited indefinitely) than the content of speech (there's a lot of truth to the notion of 'only hearing what you wanna hear'). Liberal interpretations usually lead to mistakes while more narrow interpretations, of course, reduce the chance of error (in responding to the writing). Another way to look at it: speech tends toward 'noise' and writing tends toward 'signal'.
__________________
like the other guy sez: 'not really back, blah-blah-blah...' |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Encrypted Into an AmpitheaterWall
Posts: 1,722
|
Quote:
Last edited by JBKlyde; 05-16-2012 at 11:01 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|